In whose interest was the think tank disinformation? MPs and experts are shocked by the ‘shadyness’

Read also: Fighting ‘disinformation’ about vaccines. What did officials don behind the scenes?

Should the Dutch government be involved in disinformation?

Wim Voermans, professor of constitutional and administrative law: “A democratic constitutional state must be able to protect its core values. This means that it may defend itself, give a counter-voice, contradict dangerous conspiracy theories and take the stage from it. The pandemic was a state of emergency.” But the government should be very cautious about this, according to Voermans and Roland Bal. They also believe that if a government engages in disinformation, the House of Representatives should be able to monitor how the government does this.

Bal, professor of health care policy and administration: “We know from research that the government’s approach to disinformation is often ineffective. That rather creates distrust.”

Member of Parliament Van Haga does not think that the government should concern itself with disinformation. He warns of a ‘Ministry of Truth’. “People are perfectly capable of getting news from different sources and making the distinction between ‘true’ and ‘false’ themselves.”

Should the government cooperate with commercial media platforms?

Voermans: “If there is harmful disinformation, then it is very good if the government tries to counter this. But not in consultation with the social platforms. The risk is that the government will use such a think tank to neutralize unwelcome noises. Filtering out critical dissenting voices to implement a corona emergency law or other government decisions, for example. We don’t know now if this happened. The House of Representatives must monitor this, it is the referee.”

Roland Bal: “What I find objectionable is that a central authority determines what is ‘true’ and what is ‘not true’. What actions have been carried out and by whom in the think tank?

Lotje Beek, policy advisor of digital civil rights movement Bits of Freedom: “Criminal offenses may be removed online, such as child pornography. Disinformation is in a gray area. There is currently no legal authority to deal with alleged disinformation in this way. We have not decided that democratically, so it is striking that a government appropriates this work. I am shocked that disinformation is so easily talked about. The working method of this think tank is not proportional. Moreover: is disinformation really that harmful, or has it become a buzzword?”

Where is the limit of freedom of expression?

Marloes van Noorloos, lecturer in criminal and procedural law: “Normally, a judge assesses whether an expression should be banned. On social media, this is done by the platforms themselves. They work together with the government in this think tank. For example, the government interferes with the expressions that we see on platforms, in a way that cannot be tested.”

Professor Tarlach McGonagle (media law and information society): “If national security is threatened, the government could – under very strict conditions – impose limits on freedom of expression. But this must be done in a proportionate, transparent and verifiable manner. It is not clear now whether this was the case.”

Van Haga: “You can find anything, even if you write that the moon landing did not take place. As a government, we must protect dissenters, history has shown that. The border is at criminal offenses.”